{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2014-01-16\n📝 Original message:On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 04:05:27PM -0800, Jeremy Spilman wrote:\n\u003e Might I propose \"reusable address\".\n\u003e \n\u003e I think that describes it best to any non-programmer, and even more\n\u003e so encourages wallets to present options as 'one time use' vs\n\u003e 'reusable'.\n\u003e \n\u003e It definitely packs a marketing punch which could help drive\n\u003e adoption. The feature is only useful if/when broadly adopted.\n\nI'm very against the name \"reusable addresses\" and strongly belive we\nshould stick with the name stealth addresses.\n\nYou gotta look at it from the perspective of a user; lets take standard\npay-to-pubkey-hash addresses: I can tell my wallet to pay one as many\ntimes as I want and everything works just great. I also can enter the\naddress on blockchain.info's search box, and every transaction related\nto the address, and the balance of it, pops up immediately.\n\nWhat is that telling me? A: Addresses starting with \"1\" are reusable. B:\nTransactions associated with them appear to be public knowledge.\n\nNow I upgrade my wallet software and it says I now have a \"reusable\"\naddress. My reaction is \"Huh? Normal addresses are reusable, what's\nspecial about this weird reusable address thing that my buddy Bob's\nwallet software couldn't pay.\" I might even try to enter in a \"reusable\"\naddress in blockchain.info, which won't work, and I'll just figure\n\"must be some new unsupported thing\" and move on with my life.\n\nOn the other hand, suppose my wallet says I now have \"stealth address\"\nsupport. I'm going to think \"Huh, stealth? I guess that means privacy\nright? I like privacy.\" If I try searching for a stealth address on\nblockchain.info, when it doesn't work I might think twig on \"Oh right!\nIt said stealth addresses are private, so maybe the transactions are\nhidden?\" I might also think \"Maybe this is like stealth/incognito mode\nin my browser? So like, there's no history being kept for others to\nsee?\" Regardless, I'm going to be thinking \"well I hear scary stuff\nabout Bitcoin privacy, and this stealth thing sounds like it's gonna\nhelp, so I should learn more about that\"\n\nFinally keep in mind that stealth addresses have had a tonne of very\nfast, and very wide reaching PR. The name is in the public conciousness\nalready, and trying to change it now just because of vague bad\nassociations is going to throw away the momentum of that good PR and\nslow down adoption. Last night I was at the Toronto Bitcoin Meetup and I\nbased on conversations there with people there, technical and\nnon-technical, almost everyone had heard about them and almost everyone\nseemed to understand the basic idea of why they were a good thing. That\njust wouldn't have happened with a name that tried to hide what stealth\naddresses were for, and by changing the name now we risk people not\nmaking the connection when wallet software gets upgraded to support\nthem.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000001b0e0ae7ef97681ad77188030b6c791aef304947e6f524740\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 490 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140116/e268c71f/attachment.sig\u003e"}